Yeah, just evil evil hate. Don't be a hater bro! Its not cool man! Thats just mean man, thats just mean! It has nothing to do with cynicism given the current legal and political climate, no siree bub.
Yeah, just evil evil hate. Don't be a hater bro! Its not cool man! Thats just mean man, thats just mean! It has nothing to do with cynicism given the current legal and political climate, no siree bub.
Nothing has changed. You are just letting your hate get the better of you. Nvidia may be everything you claim them to be, but the NDA isn't anything special or new in any meaningful way.
jackstar7
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2009
- 11,679
- 1,944
- 126
Counterpoint: When has it been a good idea to trust/extend the benefit of the doubt to a corporation?
When something new comes up, then there is something to discuss. Nothing changed. It's an NDA, like all others.
DooKey
Golden Member
- Nov 9, 2005
- 1,811
- 458
- 136
You've been here long enough to know many extend the benefit of the doubt to plenty of companies not named NVIDIA.
jackstar7
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2009
- 11,679
- 1,944
- 126
People definitely like to have a team. No question there.
Honestly, given the performance of Vega, the GPP, Intel's on-again/off-again with GPUs, I'm not sure there's anyone that deserves much support.
I guess my take is that healthy skepticism doesn't hurt in this case. Outright cynicism isn't really helpful.
That this raised the eyes of some of the tech journos out there gives me, the non-journalist some pause.
Honestly, given the performance of Vega, the GPP, Intel's on-again/off-again with GPUs, I'm not sure there's anyone that deserves much support.
I guess my take is that healthy skepticism doesn't hurt in this case. Outright cynicism isn't really helpful.
That this raised the eyes of some of the tech journos out there gives me, the non-journalist some pause.
And what is the conclusion? OS not everyone needs to waste 10 minutes watchign this vid...
They didn’t think it was all that much of a big deal. A lot of what people were worried about is legalese that doesn’t have the connotations that a plain reading would imply.
They didn’t cover a few other points that I’ve heard brought up by others, but some may not be relevant to GN.
We still don't know the "lawyers" full name, law firm he works for and what field does he specialize in. Divorce lawyer is worthless to give advice for patent law or contractual law or criminal law, etc...
For all we know that "lawyer" might be some out of college freshman who hasn't worked a day as an actual lawyer. Again we need facts, not bullshido "real lawyer" internet clickbait.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2014
- 7,463
- 17,821
- 136
The media moved on from this subject, maybe we should too.
If there was anything fishy with this NDA move, it won't be the last time we hear about it. If it was truly a time saving measure, we'll know when the next scandal hits and those who signed the NDA are right there in the front lines of news coverage.
If there was anything fishy with this NDA move, it won't be the last time we hear about it. If it was truly a time saving measure, we'll know when the next scandal hits and those who signed the NDA are right there in the front lines of news coverage.
I've reviewed hundreds of NDAs, CDAs, Confidentiality terms in contracts in the technology space. What I can tell you all about confidentiality provisions generally in business altogether is that the business goal overrides the precise legal language. NDAs are typically written broadly and very strongly in favor of the disclosing party when the disclosing party has superior negotiating power, like nVidia does here. Their ability to realistically utilize the rights they get in the NDA is constrained by the real world and business reality. If nVidia aggressively went after journalists to the fullest extent they could, it would be horribly detrimental to them since the journalists control a large portion of the public narrative on their products. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. So they will be held back by that. However the rights they get in there allow them to take other strategies that they could spin in different ways. I haven't reviewed the specific NDA but NDA's are fairly similar in what they can do from a broad-strokes perspective.
I'd say a particularly non-restrictive NDA would be the news story - not a highly restrictive one since that is the norm. Like how when a large organization open sources something it is note worthy, because the assumption is that proprietary code will be closed off.
I'd say a particularly non-restrictive NDA would be the news story - not a highly restrictive one since that is the norm. Like how when a large organization open sources something it is note worthy, because the assumption is that proprietary code will be closed off.
I’d have to watch it again, but it sounded like this was someone they knew or had used before and apparently signed the contract based on that person’s legal advice.
At that point I think you’d need to conclude that GN is either incompetent or purposefuly corrupt. I’ll take them at face value that this is a fairly standard contract if it’s type and that people were overly worried about the language.
If someone has other analysis that contradicts this I’d love to see it but based on evidence so far this isn’t as nefarious as first glance might indicate.
But the lawyer clearly showed his dislike for it. He called that part of the nda's wording is unclear, he said he didn't like the nda either. What lawyer tells you to sign a NDA after saying that? YA reasonable person would get a second opinion after hearing that.
There’s a difference between not liking something and it being actively bad. Companies managed to get along fine without this agreement, so I can see why anyone wouldn’t like it. There’s nothing gained and not signing it may not be an option. Who’s happy about that?
Any NDA or other binding agreement in which your lawyer advises that it's "unclear" or he/she states "I don't like it" is actively bad. To sign it would go against why you hired one.
Of course the lawyer won’t like it as it’s completely restrictive and is something that didn’t exist before.
It doesn’t give the companies anything in return and is apparently required if they want to review NVidia products. No one will like this.
However, there were a lot of arguments that made this out to be far worse or more restrictive that were false. Some people were worried that the contract required reviewers to only give good reviews or meant they were prohibited from giving NVidia negative coverage.
All that lawyer said was that those really bad things were definitely not true. If the contract had no restrictions at all, it wouldn’t need to exist.
Lets take a deep breath, take 2 steps back and look at the entire scope of the video.
The lawyer simply contradicted himself by:
-saying that the NDA is ok for "you" the listener to sign
However,
-when it came to his own personal inflections during the interview, he took issue with it. Sighting inconsistency in the term for the benefit of, the time frame of it, etc. It was clear it was something he wouldn't sign. As a matter of fact he never suggested they he would sign it.
Let us not forget that all it takes to invalidate a contract or any binding agreement is a word or phrase. I would encourage you to revisit the video so you can confirm what I've posted.
- Sep 28, 2005
- 21,126
- 3,651
- 126
If you dont like the NDA dont sign it and buy the stuff though regular channels.
If you want the free stuff, and the exclusive coverage before item is launched, then you sign the NDA.
If you dont want censorship, you wait for launch when the item comes out and then review the hell out of it without censorship.
People who sign the NDA and are complaining are just silly IMO.
You get a free car from a car maker, of course its going to have conditions, its a FREE car.
This is why a lot of reputable independent reviewers DONT ask for samples.
They are given them without NDA's except to keep hush hush until launch.
If you want the free stuff, and the exclusive coverage before item is launched, then you sign the NDA.
If you dont want censorship, you wait for launch when the item comes out and then review the hell out of it without censorship.
People who sign the NDA and are complaining are just silly IMO.
You get a free car from a car maker, of course its going to have conditions, its a FREE car.
This is why a lot of reputable independent reviewers DONT ask for samples.
They are given them without NDA's except to keep hush hush until launch.
Tweak155
Lifer
- Sep 23, 2003
- 11,449
- 264
- 126
A lot of people tie the word "free" strictly to monetarily free... everyone I think inherently knows when something truly isn't "free", but still focus just on the money aspect.
- Sep 28, 2005
- 21,126
- 3,651
- 126
your right, it could also mean free from obligation.
however i cant think of many vendors who would give u free stuff without obligation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter